Jeevan N Jyoti N Dindalkoppa Namratha B Gowda Shruthi Bhat S

4BB08EC024 4BB09EC017 4BB09EC025 4BB09EC041

Under the Guidance of K S SHIVAPRAKASHA BE, MTech, (Ph D) Associate Professor

Electronics and Communication Engineering Dept.

1

Contents
Objectives
Introduction Methodology

Literature Survey
Expected Results Paper communicated

Reference
Gantt Chart
2

Objectives
To improve the life span of the implementing energy efficiency metrics.

nodes by

To decrease wastage of energy while selecting or

changing the clusters or Cluster Heads. To implement the code for choosing the cluster head by the base station to increase the energy efficiency. Analyze and compare the new protocol with the existing LEACH protocol.

Introduction
Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) are made of a numerous number of sensor nodes and one or more base stations.

Routing in WSNs has been categorized into proactive and reactive protocols. A sensor network can be hierarchical or cluster-based hierarchical model.
4

Contd
Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH) is a clustering based protocol to collect data from wireless network.
The main idea of LEACH protocol is that all nodes are chosen to be the cluster heads periodically. Cluster heads transmit the data collected to base station. LEACH minimizes energy dissipation in sensor networks.
5

Methodology
The energy consumption can be reduced by allowing only a portion of the nodes, which are called cluster heads.
The data is aggregated by the cluster head and is transmitted to the base station. The main idea of our protocol is that all nodes are chosen to be the cluster heads periodically.

Contd
Cluster heads are selected by the base station.
Nodes join associate themselves with the closest cluster head.

The re-formation of the clusters and cluster heads are also done by the base station.
We analyse our protocol using Network Simulator

(NS2).

Literature Survey
Routing protocols is classified as location based and hierarchical protocols.
Location based protocols: GAF, GEAR.

GEAR: This protocol uses energy aware neighbor selection to route a packet towards the destination.[2]
GAF: The sensing area where nodes are distributed is

divided into small virtual grids.[3]

Contd
Drawback: The leader node does not do any aggregation or fusion as in the case of hierarchical protocols.
Hierarchical protocols: LEACH, PEGASIS. LEACH: Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH) is a clustering based protocol.[4] This protocol chooses the cluster heads periodically which aggregates the data and transmit to the base station.[5]
9

Contd...
PEGASIS: It is a near optimal chain-based protocol that is

an improvement over LEACH. The key idea in PEGASIS is to form a chain among the sensor nodes so that each node will receive from and transmit to a close neighbor. The advantage of cluster-based network is that the overall cost of the network is reduced. We are implementing our protocol using NS2

10

Contd
NS2(Network Simulator-2): A package of tools that

simulates behavior of networks. It Define Network topology, load, output files in Tcl Script. Internally, NS2 instantiates C++ classes based on the tcl scripts. Output is in form of trace files

11

Expected Result
To ensure better energy efficiency routing than the

existing LEACH protocol using energy efficient metric.

12

Paper Communicated
A survey paper, Energy Efficient Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey has got communicated to International Journal on ERS journal.

13

References
[1]

K S Shivaprakasha, Muralidhar Kulkarni, Energy Efficient Routing Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey, International Review on Computers and Software (IRECOS), November 2011 Issue, Volume 6, No 6. [2] Yu, Yan, Ramesh Govindan, and Deborah Estrin. Geographical and Energy Aware Routing: A Recursive Data Dissemination Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks. Technical report ucla/csd-tr-01-0023, UCLA Computer Science Department, 2001. [3] Roychowdhury, Sinchan, and Chiranjib Patra. Geographic Adaptive Fidelity and Geographic Energy Aware Routing in Ad Hoc Routing, Special issue of IJCCT (2010). [4]Wendi Rabiner Heinzelman, Anantha Chandrakasan, and Hari Balakrishnan, Energy-Efficient Communication Protocol for Wireless Microsensor Networks, Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2000. [5]Stephanie Lindsey, Cauligi S. Raghavendra, PEGASIS: Power-Efficient Gathering in Sensor Information Systems, Aerospace Conference Proceedings, Volume 3. IEEE, 2002.

14

Gantt chart (Bar Chart) for Final Year Project Work

SN Activity % of Completion No. of Days Required 01-10-2012 03-10-2012 18-10-2012 19-10-2012 01-01-2013 03-02-2013 04-03-2013 12-03-2013 20-03-2013 26-03-2013 30-03-2013 05-04-2013 10-04-2013 13-04-2013 16-04-2013 18-04-2013 20-04-2013 22-04-2013 24-04-2013 26-04-2013 30-04-2013 01-05-2013 03-05-2013 05-05-2013 08-05-2013 10-05-2013

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Project Guidelines/ Start Project Work First meeting with the Guide Topic selection Writing Synopsis Corrections from the Guide Synopsis submission Literature survey Synopsis seminar- (First seminar) Studying LEACH protocol NS2 installation Learning NS2 Code writing practice Implementation of some coding in NS2 Preparing code steps Coding the main aim Progress seminar report Meeting with Guide Correction from Guide Progress seminar report final Meeting with guide/coordinator Discussion with HOD Completion of coding Testing, debugging result analysis and

1 3 4 4 1 2 15 1 2 1 3 2 1 10 15 2 1 1 1 1 1 12 8

1% 4% 8% 12% 13% 15% 21% 22% 24% 25% 28% 30% 31% 41% 55% 57%

58% 59%

60% 69% 75%

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Interfacing if any Meeting with guide Paper on the project Meeting with guide Final seminar by students Project Demo Communicating paper to a journal Send paper to a conference At least two participation in a project exhibition and technical fest

3 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2

77%

79%

80% 81% 83% 85% 87%

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Project report draft Meeting with guide Correction from the guide Project report final draft Meeting with guide/coordinator Meeting with HOD Project report submission Outcome as a journal Total working days

8 1 1 3 1 1 3

92%

93% 95% 96% 97% 99% 100%

124

15

16

17